W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 10:29:23 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0908051729k2a9a1e56m8b2f49ada653a187@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I like it, particularly how the alternatives are presented and
encouraged. Provides advice that's practical and applicable to all the
tables I've authored and/or QA'd to date. Speaking from my own
experience in authoring.

Commend Maciej for finding a compromise that has had a productive
result, and all those involved in the debates leading to this (and
those yet to come ~:)


On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> Thus, I hope you will reconsider.
>>> I've updated the spec to do what you proposed.
>> Thanks. I read over your changes, and as far as I'm concerned, the new
>> spec text is in line with my compromise proposal.
>> For anyone who would like to check, here's how summary is now defined in
>> the <table> section:
>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-table-summary> And
>> the only remaining mention in the "conforming but obsolete features" section
>> is a brief note indicating that the summary attribute gives a warning:
>> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conforming-but-obsolete-features>.
> And in diff format:
>  http://tinyurl.com/m9n4jw
>  http://tinyurl.com/kqkopq
>> I think this is the best arrangement we can get in terms of a compromise
>> that both sides can live with. I understand people have concerns with
>> various aspects. But I personally do not think I can push the proposal much
>> in either direction without completely losing the support of one side or the
>> other. So I strongly urge everyone to take time and consider whether this is
>> something they can live with. If anyone wants to ask for more concessions,
>> then I don't think I could lend my support such an effort.
> I believe that Maciej is talk long term live with.
> For the moment, I'm focused on a more near term objective: is this something
> good enough for now.  So, if you agree with Maciej that this is good enough
> for the long term clearly you are OK with it for now.  If you aren't sure,
> but feel that it addresses the immediate objection; that;s fine too for my
> purposes.
> If you feel otherwise, please speak up.  I'd like to give people until
> Sunday night to do so, otherwise I will assume that this is the basis for
> the draft that we are going with.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
> - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 00:29:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC